A prior commenter wrote that Keith Olbermann's historic demographic is male sports fans who'd liked him back in the '90's on ESPN, and that this core of viewers always hated Hillary Clinton back then because Republicans demonized her as a left-wing radical. The commenter may be on to something.
Considering only his chief competition of CNN and Fox, "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann draws a higher percentage of male viewers than either of the 8 pm eastern cable shows on CNN or Fox, and he draws a lower percentage of female viewers than either of those shows. The difference is just a few points, but it is real and Nielsen picked it up. He skews more male and less female than the competition.
Cable News M-F 8-9P Programs Gender Comparison
1st Quarter 2008
Source: Nielsen Media Research (Live)
MALE FEMALE
Net Program % COMP % COMP
CNBC FAST MONEY 71% 29%
CNBC HIGH NET WORTH 65% 35%
MSNB COUNTDOWN W/ K. OLBERMANN 56% 44%
MSNB MSNBC SPECIAL COVERAGE 54% 46%
CNN CNN ELECTION CENTER 52% 48%
FOXN THE OREILLY FACTOR 52% 48%
CNN OUT IN THE OPEN 50% 50%
HLN NANCY GRACE 28% 72%
"Countdown" with Keith Olbermann Turns Five: Hurting Democrats November Chances?
Countdown on MSNBC is one of the best things about cable news. Let's face it, CNN has flatlined at 8 pm eastern and FOX still trolls the vast rightwing conspiracy. This makes former sportscaster Keith Olbermann's lively romp through the day's events must-see TV for viewers eager to end the Bush years. It's an unabashed progressive antidote to Bill O'Reilly's fake "no spin zone."
The program officially launched on March 31, 2003, and has lasted against all odds and network gods. Congratulations, Keith. "Long Shot" Louie at Hialeah wouldn't put a fin on your fate back then, but you made it, pal.
Now, in the words of pugilistic Pat Buchanan, shut up! Just kidding. But at least lighten up, OK?
There was a time Olbermann's ammo was aimed almost exclusively at Republicans and administration incompetence. This made him a perfect fit to moderate the Democratic debate in Chicago last August, and he exhibited utmost fairness toward all eight candidates.
Things have definitely changed since then.
Never before in U.S. history has a woman or an African-American been a major party presidential nominee. This is a profound "first" either way, yet you wouldn't know it by Countdown's election coverage. For several months, it's been anti-Hillary Clinton to a degree unchecked, on matters big and small. Olbermann's constant criticism at her expense has grown more specious and less covert; Barack Obama backers are positively blissful about it.
Here's one of myriad examples: Ohio has 11.5 million people, 20 electoral votes, and is a crucial swing state. Clinton won its primary by a whopping 230,000 popular votes. Wyoming, on the other hand, has only half a million people, 3 electoral votes, and is decidedly Republican. After its caucuses, attended by fewer than 9,000 Democrats, Olbermann led his show by breathlessly touting the results of Obama's "landslide victory" over her as if it were Game 7 of the World Series. Amazing.
To paraphrase Countdown's signature tag line, "Which of these states should you really be talking about tomorrow?"
Certainly, the fight for the nomination merits Topic A status. But remember, this political process isn't a zero sum game like sporting events on ESPN, the loser jeered off the field by juvenile fans. Those of us who voted for Obama - or any other Democrat - get to stay fully and equally vested in the greater cause of November.
In truth, a record 28 million citizens have participated on the Democratic side so far, and Obama and Clinton are separated by a remarkably narrow 700,000 votes, 49% to 46%. Michigan and Florida's disallowed votes (almost 10% of America's dems) would make it even closer. Plus, a new Rasmussen poll finds 62% of Democrats want the campaign to continue, while 22% each (a tie) said the other one should quit. March Madness, indeed.
As those stats plainly suggest, everyone has friends in each camp. We can't "subtract the humanity from the equation," as Olbermann eloquently agreed in his 2002 Salon essay "Mea Culpa". If the goal is unity and high turnout in the general election, how does demonizing the choice made by much of his own fan base do the trick?
Candidates naturally go at each other in tight races, and these two have been less contentious than others. If Clinton has morphed into Monty Python's armless and legless knight ("It's just a flesh wound"), forthcoming voters will signal it. Besides, we're all concerned about hidden costs, no one more so than Olbermann's on-air colleague, Air America's Rachel Maddow.
At the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, the remaining finalists traded differences on health care and foreign policy, largely ignoring the elephant in the room. Afterwards, an MSNBC panel of guests provided analysis. Maddow had a depressed look on her face, glumly offering this:
"Honestly, the big picture here is, I think that John McCain wins the debate tonight. I think this was the Democratic voter enthusiasm suppression act of 2008."
If the Obama/Clinton battle leads to that grim reality, I bet Olbermann's incessant negativity contributes at the margins. Regardless of the eventual nominee, a sliver of their needed support at the polls next fall will be demoralized or angered. That's human nature, but piling on from the media sidelines, night after night, further deepens such detrimental attitudes. And mind you, Countdown claims solidarity!
In a recent conversation with the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, Olbermann prefaced a typical Clinton swipe by saying, "Again, I'm missing something because I'm relatively new to politics...." I took him at his word.
My advice, Keith, is to try and keep it smoothly in the fairway. Winning the White House will take all of us arriving at the 19th hole in good spirits. Happy Anniversary.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It would seem that a lot of the regular viewers of MSNBC have been turned off lately, myself among them. Their coverage from the start has been heavy handed, with little or not attention afforded to experienced candidates like Edwards, Biden, Dodd, etc. Their message got lost in the hype given over to Obama. The Hillary bashing from Tweetie, Scarborough and Tucker got amplified when Keith began his rants. The "special comments" regarding the Geraldine Ferrerro flap did it for me. Tongue lashing a candidate to that extent only increased my ire and I tuned out that cable network. It would be interesting to see if the ratings went up or down since then if these posts had any effect. The media needs to be sent a message that we refuse to let them pick our candidate. It was done in 2000 and look what we got. These talking heads are given too much adulation for uttering the most stupid comments and we need only blame ourselves for buying into the crapola. Issues are hardly ever discussed and the same dupes are paraded out night after night to rehash the same talking points. Total irrelevancy.
I've enjoyed Olbermann, but he's no "independent journalist" as a comment says. MSNBC and NBC are owned by General Electric, a massive corporation, and he's under contract. The fatcats in carpeted offices didn't just decide on a lark one day to hand a nightly hour on their cable network to some brave truth teller.
Commercial television is big business. It's strictly about ratings, the end-all and be-all of the biz. Olbermann's outfront bashing of the pathetic Bush crowd was based on the idea of increasing anti-Bush viewers bored with CNN and turned off by FOX. It worked. No doubt it reflects his own views, but Keith can believe the moon's made of green cheese if he wants, he won't be saying so nightly if the numbers don't roll in from Nielsen. It's that simple.
Same with Hillary-bashing. Keith's core demographic is 18-49 male sports fans who loved him on ESPN in the '90's. They loved Keith but ALWAYS hated Hillary, remember? Still do. It started in '92, when republicans painted her as a commie feminist, remember? Sports guys are Keith's historic base. NBC even put him on the Sunday football pre-game show last fall to capitalize on his strength among males, and his ratings increased again, drawing still more of those Hillary-hating viewers. Hillary haters plus anti-Bushies equals Obama.
The gambit has worked short-term, but even Obama supporters in my large Democratic circle find his relentless Hillary attacks bordering on misogyny.
I stopped watching MSNBC, completely, 3 months ago and will never watch it again. ABC/Charlie Gibson...He's the Man!
I watched Countdown, and loved it, from the start. That being out of the way, I haven't watched it in months because of the overwhelming bias that Olbermann has been forcing on his viewers for months. It started with his disenfranchising of the "minor" candidates and his absolute discounting of John Edwards. Once he got Edwards "out of the way" it's been no-holds-barred Clinton bashing for 50-odd minutes. Of all the dem candidates who started out, Clinton and Obama were at the absolute bottom of my list, so I've been feeling the pain since the season started, but Countdown is now unwatchable for anyone who isn't genuflecting at the altar of Obama. All I asked for was equal consideration--I'm still asking for equal consideration. Olbermann has become what he professes to hate most--a mouthpiece for a particular faction--in other words, Fox news.
I sincerely hope once November is behind us, I'll be able to watch Countdown again.
Olbermann is one of the few independent journalists on cable. He calls out phonies, liars and hypocrites, regardless of which party they're in.
Like GWBs supporters, many Clinton supporters apparently want endless pro-Hillary spin. Well, for that, you can watch CNN--especially Blitzer, Dobbs, and Crowley.
Keith calls it as he sees it, and has shown a great deal of courage through the years in doing so. He's honest about his point of view toward an event, lays out the facts behind it (like his brilliant essay two weeks ago on the problems with Clinton's recent campaign strategy), and looks for the truth--so important in an election year..
We may not always agree with him, but why would we really want an honest broadcaster to change? Its a rarity.
COUNTDOWN is not a regular "news show", nor is it billed as a straight news show. It's News,Entertainment and HUMOR. It's the ONLY prime time, news based show that doesn't even attempt to show "both sides". Keith is our salvation. When you watch Countdown, you don't have to watch the blathering Repugs spinning BS, unless they are the subject of his ridicule.
It's only fair that Progressives get an hour celebrating the liberal viewpoint. After all, the other 23 hours of msnbc, and all 24 hours of CNN and Fox are utter,manipulative,racist, right-wing crap.
Keith refects the interests of his audience. He tells it like he sees it. And he sees Clinton the same way
his audience does.
The question "If the roles were reversed, and Clinton was in Obama's position, and Obama was behind in states won, committed delegates, and the popular vote, what would the Clintons be saying ?"
Plueeeze.
Thank you Keith.Keep up the good work.
We all know the answer
You mean, "He sees Clinton is the same way his *remaining* audience does."
Mr. Williams, you are mistaken about Mr. Olbermann. When he attacks Hillary, he IS attacking the Republicans. It all started when she compared herself to John McCain saying, "John McCain has experience, I have experience, Obama has a speech he made in 2002."
It was Hillary's conscious decision to split with the Democrats, and "pull herself up by tearing the other guy down."
For a lot of us, the notion of Hillary being "in league" with Republicans isn't a conspiracy theory, it's an observable truth proven by her voting record, her association with the DLC, and some of her recent comments.
Your article here suggests that division is possible, but less the responsibility of the candidates, more the media. But, you yourself are sowing division with the Michigan and Florida primaries. It's been decided, they broke the rules, they are being punished, and yet you and the rest of Hillary's minions protest that their right to vote is being denied, and that Obama is responsible.
That's just paritisan bullshit.
Your bio says you "look forward to the day when the 'Lone Star State,' ... rediscovers its historic roots of divided government instead of one-party rule." If that's true, vote for Obama. Bush, McCain, Bill and Hillary Clinton are all in the same party: The CORPORATE PARTY.
This election is about character. Keith Olbermann is exposing the characters who've stolen, and are trying to continue to steal our democracy from us.
Obama-Webb '08
Agreed.
It's amazing to see all the "I won't watch KO anymore" (Who never had any intention to in the first place) people come out of the woodwork, suddenly. Like Obama, KO has certain folks scared, and they show their hand with every attack.
Keith is calling it as he see it and is one or maybe the only one who isn't afraid of the Clintons and has the courage to expose the Clinton machine for what it is. After all the Clintons, among so many outlandish indiscretions, have basically endorsed John McCain. CNN is pro Clinton, Fox is dangerously ignorant and right wing and is pro Clinton because they want her to run against McCain; the rest of the main stream media want to preserve the status quo. they're intimidated by the Clintons and are afraid of being called sexist if they criticize Hillary.
You write that Fox "wants her to run against McCain." Why would Fox want that? The Right are the one's who demonized her throughout the 90's as a left-wing radical. So now they want her against McCain? Why is that? Are you saying the Right wants her as the nominee (a left winger they've hated passionately for 15 years) because they think she'll be easier to beat in November? Is that your point?
You write that "Michigan and Florida primaries have "been decided, they broke the rules, they are being punished, and yet you and the rest of Hillary's minions protest that their right to vote is being denied, and that Obama is responsible."
Who are you, some Catholic school marm with a ruler, whacking anyone who so much as looks the wrong way? What's up with that?
Repubs voted early in those states, too, and the national repubs punished them by docking half their delegates. They then had their race in those states and moved on, no lingering mess. For some freaky reason, we Dems weirded out and docked 100% of delegates in those states, and yet Michigan and Florida account for almost 10% of all Democrats nationally. Is that wise? I want to win the White House in November. Call me old fashioned.
It's the "Obama is responsible" part of the statement that's untrue, and is galling to a lot of us.
MSNBC is not in my cable package so I have never watched Keith. Last night, I guess due to his anniversary, he show was televised on NBC. What a disappointment! He was as bad as O'Reilly usually is. I'm glad I never extended my cable service. Fox and CNN will have to do and I am pretty disgusted with both networks. Thank goodness for Jon Stewart.
I, too, have given up Keith as well as most of MSNBC since it seems to be so 'in the tank' for an Obama vs McCain match. Having watched MSNBC for many years it has been distressing to see its' steady progression from just 2 of its hosts Hillary Bashing to virtually ALL of its hosts doing the same. It makes me believe that their is a corporate policy of 'thou shalt support Obama and bash Hillary' in place at MSNBC. Dan Abrams, so far seems to balance things and I have some hope for David Gregory's new show....but now that Keith has been turned, I will watch only those programs and with a critical eye to see if they to decide to show a bias. Then I will be sure it is Top-Down as I now believe it is, at least to some degree.
The Clinton campaign has been successful at spinning the primary results as follows:
1. She claims the delegate count is close--essentially a tie. Take a look at the total number of delegates Clinton gained from her big wins in Texas and Ohio (4 net) and you'll see that Obama's lead is insurmountable.
2. Clinton is spinning the notion that Obama can't win in NY, NJ, California and other states where she won the primary. Does any literate, sane adult believe that those solidly blue states will vote for McCain if Obama is the candidate?
3. Clinton claims she's nearly tied with Obama in the popular vote. But even her campaign manager knows that this is a delegate contest, not a popular vote contest. The popular vote isn't even counted in caucus states where Obama has been cleaning up. More Clinton baloney.
4. Clinton's claim that she must fight all the way to the convention rests on a poll showing 62% of Dems want her to continue. If respondents knew that after five more months, both candidates' negatives would be so high that neither could win in November, how many would want her to continue? Answer: 100% of Hillary 2012 supporters.
Texas goes repub, and California and NY are easily Democratic in November. Everyone knows that. Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are uncertain, and they're 85 of the needed 270 electoral votes. A Democrat losing three of them (maybe just two) won't win. Take Penn: Clinton won by 10 points in '96, Gore by 5 in 2000, Kerry by just 1.5 in 2004. "Solidly blue" today? Let's say she takes Penn by 2 or 3 hundred thousand votes, like she did Ohio and Florida. Do these dems come home for Obama next fall? I say yes, but who knows what happens at the margins in November if dems in those states have rejected him overwhelmingly?
Plus, McCain will go back to his "Maverick Middle," losing some religious Right support but offsetting it with added moderates and independents. A crucial state that overwhelmingly rejects a particular Democrat in the primary is ripe for McCain if that particular Democrat is on the ballot next fall. This is just math, common sense.
Also, the popular vote is most certainly counted in caucus states. You're wrong. Check out the link Williams provided for Wyoming in the entry. The popular vote affects how delegates are divvied up.
I read the entry as being about the impact "Countdown" may or may not have on dem TV viewers long-term who otherwise enjoy the show's Bush-bashing. It wasn't germane to Barack or Hillary talking points, but both sides see everything thru only that prism, apparently.
If Keith does have a bias, then you have to evaluate what led him to a bias. You talk about Wyoming and it's 9,000 democrats - and Hillary's win of 200,000+. The real story is this: Obama believes that every state matters, Republican or Democrat, and that the nation stands to gain from having active people in every state for your cause - even if they are a minority. Even in a Republican state those that seek thePresidency should campaign there.
Hillary Clinton belittles those states. "They don't matter", is the catch-all. I must admit I think it's bold to tell people in over thirty different states, "You don't matter". But in the end, I don't think that's how you win the Presidency. The attitude that society is static, and that those states that are Republican NOW, will always be. That is the mentality of Hillary Clinton, must like Rev. Wright, they make mistake thinking that nothing CAN or has ever changed.
Olbermann is right, at that time people were saying Obama can't win the white vote (it was everywhere after Ohio - pushed by Hillary) and then he wins Wyoming (all white state) proving that those claims are insane. The big story of Wyoming is that the pundits (and Hillary) were wrong in saying or implying that he has a problem with the white vote.
Ohio? She was favored by 20 points, in two weeks he brought that down to 10 and somehow this is a hugh victory.
jcharliemiller, you write "But in the end, I don't think that's how you win the Presidency."
No, that's EXACTLY how you win the presidency. It takes 270 electoral votes to win. There are dozens of states that don't matter on November 4th. Wyoming is one of them because it is small in population (just 3 electoral votes) and is certain to go Republican in November. It doesn't matter to a Democrat's chances of winning like Ohio does. Period. A state like Texas doesn't, either. It has a large number of electoral votes, 31, but we know today - in March - that it is likely to be in the Republican column in November. On and on there are states that we know today, in March, what they'll do in November, and so these states largely don't matter in terms resources of time and money spent to get to the magic number of 270 electoral votes.
Florida has 27 electoral votes, Pennsylvania 21, Ohio 20, Michigan 17. Those are states that matter in November, a lot. All four of them could go either way in November. A Democrat who loses three of those four (and probably just two of them) will not be measuring the drapes in the White House next January 20. That's the game, the only game.
Oh EXACTLY. And this is what worries me about Prince Obama-he had his shots in OH, for example, and CA, and NY and NJ and MA-he didn't win a One of them. It's one thing to win all those southern states w/ gobs of black voters in the primary-SC/LA/MS/etc but where do you think all of them are gonna wind up in the fall? Right-McCain. Ditto WY and UT and NE and whatever else. That ain't cutting it.
Prince Obama wins PA, then GREAT-he should be the nominee and Hillary should w/draw. But if he can't, and if he loses there like he did in OH-lookie folks, this could get, shall we say, even MORE interesting, yes yes.
I think that KO would satisfy my news needs better if he tried to report the news. I will make up my own opinion, and I do not need or want anyone else to try to tell me what to think. That is why I consider Limbaugh and O'Reilly wastes of my time, and to a large extent, KO as well.
I suspect that KO is part of an organisation that is in the entertainment business, not public service news.
Facts, not opinion, please.
I solved my Olbermann problem by ceasing to watch him. As a Clinton supporter there was simply no point. I know he likes to throw his ratings at O'Reilly. I wonder how well his ratings are doing now that he has pushed away half of his viewers.
What we love about KO is the point of view he brings to his newscast. It's clear that in his POV, Team Hillary has run a terrible campaign, particularly since South Carolina when subtle and cheap racial shots were injected into the race. It's occurred again since, as has the Clintons touting of McCain as a more desirable candidate than Obama.
If you like Countdown for what KO brings to the table, don't complain when his same 'see through the BS' analytical sense he's used against the right becomes applicable against Team Hillary. It would be hypocritical if he were to lay off of what he sees as terribly wrong.
I also want to know is Olberman being compensated by the Obama camp. This is waaaaaaaaaay to much I no longer watch msnbc Obama has no need to run ads they are doing his work for him. Does the mainstream media actually thing that we will vote based on thier biases or thier hate for the Clintons I dont think so. This is why we cannot trust the mainstream media who are really pushing thier own agenda they must take responsibility in helping to splitting the democraic party. But I want to thank Keith Olberman come fall in the general election because i will be voting for Mccain never for thier candidate Obama.
The more they do, the more I and others dig in and refuse to give them their way....call for anything you want, but I suggest room service, we are gonna be here for the long-haul.
Loading comments…
In a candid interview via satellite from China, Olympic...
Update: Keith Olbermann had Rachel Maddow on "Countdown" Tuesday night to celebrate...
UPDATE: A day after Roseanne's blogs from below...
"How honest are we if we tell the truth most of the time &...
Obama's been to Hawaii. We're moving...
Posted March 28, 2008 | 10:54 AM (EST)